Why it’s critical we cover so-called “controversial” science

Facts are not controversial, but unfortunately cause controversy.

Ars Technica has never been afraid to cover so-called "controversial" issues in science and culture. Here is why we routinely cover them—and why we reject calls for us to be silent on such issues.

I put "controversial" in quotes for a reason. Many of the topics that are supposedly controversial are not really contentious at all among people who are properly informed and rely on a scientific understanding of the physical world around us. However, due to the fact that scientific literacy is sadly lacking on this great planet of ours, "controversy" emerges when individuals, groups, societies, and nations are forced to confront their nonscientific worldviews with the findings of science. Of course, skepticism is a healthy and powerful thing. But skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is not healthy, so long as you remember what the word "overwhelming" means. And facts themselves are not controversial.

Through the years I have received countless e-mails and have read hundreds of article comments imploring Ars to keep "political" stuff off the site. Such entreaties most commonly occur in relation to our scientific coverage of climate change or evolution, but also when we cover biological and anthropological matters of gender and sex. (They also come to a lesser extent when we cover the inherently political world of intellectual property, where, coincidentally, there are far fewer facts—but that's outside the scope of this editorial.)

What those petitioners do not realize is that in asking us to be silent, they require that we take a politicized stance. Intentional silence is support for the status quo, and as such, it's inherently political. Note that I'm speaking of intentional silence or avoidance, purposely not covering a topic so as not to bring light to it. Inasmuch as our editorial mission is, in part, to cover the issues relating to science and technology that are most challenging to our culture, it is unthinkable for us not to cover these issues. To reiterate, not covering them would be just as "political" as covering them.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that reporting scientific truth and endeavors can ever be a form of "trolling" or "click bait." The purpose of such reporting is to educate and inform, and in some cases, to help understand. The fact that so many misinformed (and quite often willingly misinforming) readers react negatively to such coverage only underscores the need for this kind of reporting.

Promoted Comments

For the most part I find Arstechnica's articles that could be antireligious to be written in a neutral-skeptical tone.

However, when the article could be taken to an antireligious rant, the comments usually do degenerate into something that makes me feel - as someone who is spiritual but not religious - somewhat uneasy expressing my opinion.

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who happens to be an atheist. We used to debate politics - truly debate. It was respectfully done. The only time a line was crossed, apologies were exchanged. These debates were done years ago and since then political lines have been redrawn such that my moderate shift to the left in the interim has me categorized as a raving liberal. However, last night as conversation meandered, I said something about those debates that I'm not certain I could ever say to someone here because of the tactics allowed: "Thank you for giving me the room to change."

She isn't someone I know face to face, we know each other through our online names only and we debated on forums and nowhere else. That same room is not given to people on arstechnica and it is not given to religious nor spiritual individuals on sites that assert the validity of scientific theories.

Respecting someone who is wrong is something so difficult that not many people ever master it. Running into someone who held opinions opposite of mine and was willing to respectfully discuss them with me - at times with greater maturity than I had - changed how I thought.

I love your coverage. The comments have been priceless for putting counterpoints together against deniers. By further educating myself on arguments for/against I increase my intelligence, my ability to debate, and hopefully slowly push the ball in the direction of science.

I applaud Ars Technica for reporting on these kinds of issues. When the science is clear, there's no reason to avoid covering it, even if some people might find it controversial or offensive or disagreeable or uncomfortable. I've always enjoyed the fact that Ars realizes one of the most important lessons we can ever learn: The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

There is an anti religious slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

I'd be really interested in knowing how we're anti-religious in our coverage. Aside from dismissing things like the 6k year old earth, or the "intelligent design" pseudiscience stuff, I don't think we really get close to that material.

I think you mean there is an anti-reality slant to some religion. The facts are fine, it's people's beliefs that need to change. And they do change all the time; most people would call a doctor a quack if he made a diagnosis based on humorism rather than modern disease theory.

There's no evidence for an afterlife. There's nothing you could study or reproduce that makes "sin" a viable physical concept. No phenomenon is known in physics that would make angels or demons possible. Etcetera. Folks need to accept this and move on.

I've been reading Ars well over a decade because when an apparent controversy arises, they're not afraid to resolve it by looking to science.

I enjoy coming to Ars because I read stories I don't agree with. However not all authors/stories are equal.

There is an anti superstition slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

Either way I enjoy Ars and appreciate the writing, though some pieces make me smh.....

Fixed that for you.

Jackstrop - there is no need to belittle other commenters because you don't agree with them. You can have a rational discussion without name calling.

theJonTech - I don't think I have ever read anything "anti-religion" on Ars. Ars is clearly pro-science, but the two don't have to be related. Most great scientists throughout time were also deeply religious. This current friction between the two does nothing to advance humanity.

As my son's favorite song says "Science is Real." At the same time, so is the right to a belief system, be it religious, humanist, or something else.

You forgot to mention those that want less bias or "fanboyism," which points to a hopefully small segment that thinks Ars should only post content that conforms to what they already know (and thus teaches them nothing new). I view Ars as the moderated version of Wired (which I stopped looking at years ago). I'd love to see more tech/industry stuff and less gadget news (or at least better gadget write-ups), but being on this site doesn't mean I have to read every post.

Sadly, even when we have started to colonize other planets, there will still be groups of "believers" that try and fit real life into that closed little box they call religion.

It's really frustrating how it has become standard that when someone speaks publicly about an opinion you disagree with (or worse, facts you don't like) it's considered virtuous to tell them to be silent. How is that remotely virtuous? That's antithetical to the whole foundation of modern democracy.

The proper response to someone sharing opinions you don't like is to share your own considered and well worded opinion; not to silence those you oppose. Sheesh. I thought this was something we learned in elementary school when we learned about MLK?

I really like Ars, and completely agree with the content of this article.

Being from Britain however, I really like my information and opinion pieces clearly split - and this is the only time I sometimes get slightly irritated with Ars. For instance, whilst I completely agree with the content of the article, the t-shirt photo clearly betrays the inherent bias of the author. I mean that in the mildest sense.

But then this is pretty much an editorial piece, so who am I to complain eh? Ah, hoist by my own petard.

It had no point other then to say "Hey your idiots and we don't like you"

Some Posters, who normally disagree, thought it to be in poor taste.

The focus seems to be not on promoting science, but demoting others views, which is the long run really hurts good science.

Let's review the facts;

- An Intelligent Design "think tank" uses a stock image background in order to try to look serious and scientific.

- Ars posts an article about this fact.

And Ars is persecuting religious people because of this? If you agree with those Intelligent Design people, they are the ones you should be mad at for making themselves (and you by proxy) look silly. Not Ars for reporting the facts.

I read ars, and I have a religion. I don't feel like they've ever taken an editorial stance against my religion. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've taken pains not to go there, when it would have been easy and probably driven a bit more traffic to do so.

Now, maybe if I hinged my faith on completely unscientific theories about geology and biology, instead of, you know, the moral and spiritual teachings, I might feel offended. But I don't.

There is an anti religious slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

I'd be really interested in knowing how we're anti-religious in our coverage. Aside from dismissing things like the 6k year old earth, or the "intelligent design" pseudiscience stuff, I don't think we really get close to that material.

I don't think we set out to bash religion. A good chunk of our staff are quite religious, and many of those that aren't are spiritual on some level.

I think that Jon is referring to the fact that most articles don't explain the pseudo-science side of things thoroughly, potentially giving that side its rightful due. Phil Plait runs into this stuff all the time, with people posting in his comments that he isn't giving intelligent design enough credit, which makes sense since there is absolutely no actual *evidence* to support it. Presenting two sides to a (realistically) one-sided argument doesn't make sense.

My coworker gets mad when another guy and I discuss science at work because we don't mention a god or whatever in our discussions. This other guy and I were talking a while ago about the more recent discovery that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating rather than decelerating (as previously thought) and the coworker started grilling us about it. He was asking if there was any was that the universe was really spinning, not expanding, and if we were admitting that the universe had definite edges and therefore existed within the confines of "the creator's scope?" I replied that it was possible that the universe is rotating rather than expanding, and that it really could be finite, but that there isn't really any evidence to support either of his "claims" other than hopes or supposition.

It's not that the other guy or I ever say disparaging things about religion, we just don't bring it up since it is irrelevant to bring up hokum or dreamy-things when discussing repeatably observable fact. These people need to understand that reality (science) and fantasy (theology) are not even the same sport and cannot be argued intelligently.

It had no point other then to say "Hey your idiots and we don't like you"

Some Posters, who normally disagree, thought it to be in poor taste.

The focus seems to be not on promoting science, but demoting others views, which is the long run really hurts good science.

1. Is Intelligent Design based on scientific evidence and research?2. Is the video nonsensical from an evolutionary biologist's point of view?3. Is she actually in a lab?4. Is the fake lab intended to give credibility to her argument?

Assuming your answers are "no, yes, no, yes", it should be clear why the article is mocking the faked picture of a lab in the background.

It's in unfortunate that the Ars Staff needs to post such an editorial to justify their actions when it comes to "controversial" science. While it's unfortunate, I applaud Ars for sticking to your principles and letting those principles be known to the public. Often times news sites and blogs have an ulterior motive and try to mask (usually unsuccessfully) their underlying bias. Kudos to Ars for being transparent up front.

And while we're at it, I wonder what the Ars Staff feels is the "appropriate" level of reporting for the "opposing" view. While the scientific facts are not in of themselves debatable, often times the interpretation or framing of those facts is (e.g., climate change). One issue I have with the mainstream media in general is the whole concept of "equal opportunity" or "fair and balanced" reporting. Many news outlets feel that it is necessary to give equal coverage or broadcast time to each side of a debate. However, in almost all cases there is an overwhelming majority or consensus for one side of the debate over the other. As such, I completely oppose giving equal coverage to such debates. Instead, it should be proportional. For instance, if 90% of the world wide scientific community believes one thing and 10% believe another, then coverage should be 90/10, not 50/50. Giving equal time artificially inflates the controversy when in reality it is relatively insignificant.

What is Ars's policy towards the extent and quantity of reporting the "controversy"?

It had no point other then to say "Hey your idiots and we don't like you"

Some Posters, who normally disagree, thought it to be in poor taste.

The focus seems to be not on promoting science, but demoting others views, which is the long run really hurts good science.

No, I'd say the point of that article is: look how disingenuous these people are. First, they claim to be doing science, which they are not. Second, they even try to virtually dress the part. It's misrepresentation, and I think it deserves to be exposed.

Using green screens is a common occurrence in media, but that was used as a ruse for the article. Honestly why waste the time and energy?

Using green screens is indeed common. But when it's being done for purely deceptive purposes -- in this case to make someone look like a serious scientist who is neither --- then it needs to be called out.

Put it this way, if it were Rachel Maddow appearing on a green screen of a picture of Afghanistan to make it look like she were reporting from the battle front while she's really safely in a studio in NYC, would you think that deserves to be called out or is anything A-OK because green screens are common?

Again, I say, your issue is with the people who chose to try to be deceptive and made themselves and their side of the "issue" look silly.

I enjoy coming to Ars because I read stories I don't agree with. However not all authors/stories are equal.

There is an anti religious slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

Either way I enjoy Ars and appreciate the writing, though some pieces make me smh.....

I really don't think that is the case. Religion is not exempt from criticism or examination. It is not (or should not be) taboo. If something in your religion contradicts what we otherwise know to be true, then your religion has a problem.

There's also the burden of evidence. There *might* be a god, sure, but there's no evidence of it. There might also be a flying spaghetti monster and a teapot floating in orbit around Saturn. We have no evidence of either of those, and we have no obligation to assume they're true. You may believe them to be true if you like, but you don't get to say "you should be more balanced in your coverage of the celestial teapot!" Objectively speaking, there is no reason to believe it exists. You are free to be subjective, and believe in things that there are no objective reason to believe in (and most human beings *do* believe in at least some such things -- and whatever you believe in, you might actually be *right*), but your belief is not sacred, and others do not have to bow down to it or avoid saying anything that might disturb it.

Ars covers a lot of stuff which contradicts *some* aspects of *some* religions (say, the "young Earth" stuff, and denial of evolution), but that is not being "anti-religion". That is, as another commenter put it, religion being "anti-reality". If we know, or discover, facts about the world we live in, then those facts take precedence over anything we make up and *hope* to be true.

If we know that evolution is a thing, then Ars absolutely gets to say that evolution is a thing, even if it upsets a certain group of religious people. And that is not being "unbalanced" or "anti-religion". It is being perfectly balanced: It would be dangerously unbalanced if ideas we know to be false were presented on an equal footing with those we know to be true.

There is an anti religious slant to the some stories, which is unfortunate, as presenting ones argument or side doesn't mean we have to disparage other groups or peoples.

I'd be really interested in knowing how we're anti-religious in our coverage. Aside from dismissing things like the 6k year old earth, or the "intelligent design" pseudiscience stuff, I don't think we really get close to that material.

Ken Fisher / Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation.